Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE „A‟ BENCHES :: PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL, HON. VICE- & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, HON.
M/s. Maruti Steel Fab, vs ACIT (TDS), CPC, Level 3, Riverside Business Ghaziabad. Bay, Wellesley Road, Near RTO, Pune-411001 PAN: AAPFM 5863 L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Diksha Agarwal Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 09/08/2023 Date of pronouncement : 14/08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench: These batch of seven appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 07.03.2023 for A.Y.2013-14 (ITA Nos. 854 to 856/PUN/2023); dated 16.03.2023 for 2014-15 (ITA Nos. 857 to 859/PUN/2023); and dated 07.03.2023 for A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No.860/PUN/2023).
The only issue raised in these appeals is the charging of late fees u/sec. 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the -860/PUN/2023 Maruti Steel Fab Q2 to Q4 arising in A.Y. 2013-14 and Q1 to Q4 arising in 2014-15.
At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 81 days in to 856 & 860/PUN/2023 and 72 days in ITA Nos.857 to 859/PUN/2023 in presenting the appeals before the Tribunal. Ld.counsel for the assessee has filed a condonation application(s) along with affidavit(s) and explained the delay at the time of hearing, and after hearing the submissions and going through the contents of the same, we observe that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide intention of the assessee, if any, in these cases, and such delay was rather caused due to various circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Ld.DR also did not raise any objection for condonation of delay. Hence, the delay in filing all these appeals is condoned and the cases were heard and adjudicated on merits. Since the facts and circumstances and issues in these appeals are absolutely similar and identical, all the matters were heard together and disposed off vide this consolidated order.
The brief facts of the case(s) are that the assessee filed the TDS returns for the respective quarters belatedly. Based on that, the Assessing Officer (AO) levied late fee u/sec. 234E of the Act. The assessee approached the NFAC but without success. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has approached the Tribunal. -860/PUN/2023 Maruti Steel Fab
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record.
5.1 The solitary issue raised in all the appeals is against confirmation of fee u/sec. 234E imposed by the AO. The assessment years involved in these appeals are 2013-14 & 2014-15, which shows that the fees u/sec.234E has been imposed for the delay in furnishing the statements for quarters prior to 01/06/2015.
5.2 Sec. 200A deals with processing of statements of tax deducted at source. Clause (c) of sec.200A(1) was inserted by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015 providing for levy of fee u/sec. 234E of the Act. In that view of the matter, such fee u/sec. 234E can be levied only for the default committed after 01/06/2015 and not prior to that. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. UOI & Ors. (2022) 440 ITR 26 (Ker.) has confirmed the non-imposition of fee for the period prior to 01/06/2015. Similar view has been taken in JIJI Varghese v. ITO (TDS) (2022) 443 ITR 267 (Ker.) holding that no interest u/sec. 234E can be imposed for the period of respective assessment years prior to June 01, 2015. Thus, it is seen that issue raised in these appeals is covered in favour of the assessee. Following the precedents, we overturn the impugned order(s) on the sole issue. -860/PUN/2023 Maruti Steel Fab
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in open Court on 14th August, 2023.